Guy

"QE" of the USD started in September of 2008. After growing its balance sheet from under 1.0T to 4.5T in December of 2014, the Federal Reserve did not let its balance sheet shrink until January of 2018. And then only slowly did the balance sheet shrink down to 3.8T in September of 2019, only back to 2013 levels or about 20% of the way back to the 2008 level of 1.0T, not halfway undoing the previous bout of "QE" (2.8T to 4.5T to 3.8T). In October 2019 the Fed did more "QE" which grew the balance sheet to 9.0T in April of 2022. From April of 2022 until last month (December of 2025) the balance sheet shrunk slightly to 6.5T, only back to 2020 levels or about 30% of the way back to the 2008 level of 1.0T, still far above the 2018 level, and also not halfway undoing the previous bit of "QE" (3.8T to 9.0T to 6.5T).
Another bout of "QE" appears to begin now.
If the behaviors of previous "QE"s continue, we will never see a Fed balance sheet under 6.5T, and in two or three years it will be well above 9.0T and then never return to 9.0T.
There is no end in sight.

2026-01-02 18:10:24 UTC

- reply

https://lmms.io/

2026-01-02 18:05:50 UTC

- reply

Try a few combinations on the floor.

2025-12-30 20:56:56 UTC

Keonne Rodriguez describes mackerel as money on the inside.
"Whenever these types of limits and restrictions are imposed within the otherwise free and unencumbered market by top down administrators, market participants find a work-around."
https://www.therage.co/letter-2-keonne-rodriguez/

2025-12-30 18:33:43 UTC

- reply

Unbanked has a nice ring to it.

2025-12-30 16:25:00 UTC

- reply

Today, one BTC trades for about $90K and 1000 one-ounce silver Philharmonics trade for about $80K. Slight loss to date.

2025-12-30 16:04:44 UTC

- reply

The original post is still up at https://xcancel.com/susanbenali/status/1329025804899135490
And she clarified "Tweet says 1 #bitcoin not all my bitcoin🤓" at https://xcancel.com/susanbenali/status/1329171343074529281

2025-12-30 15:50:51 UTC

- reply

In case the image doesn't load, I am posting its contents for posterity.
The image depicts a Twitter/X post with an image and a single reply. The original post is from "Susan Benali" (@susanbenali) on November 18, 2020 saying "Call me stupid but I just exchanged 1 #bitcoin ₿ for 1000 #silver coins." An image in the same post shows two maroon-colored monster boxes of Austrian Silver Philharmonics and a close-up of one of the labels with text "Wiener Philharmoniker
1 Ounce Silver
Year: 2020 500 pcs.
Gross weight: 16,8000 kg
02.07.2019 09:54:20" and a 1D barcode (EIN-13) decoding to the value 9120042103864. The post had 1K comments, 465 reposts, and 3K hearts. A reply to the post from "Unit of a Count" (@CountBitcoin) on November 18, 2020 at 9:56 AM says "That Silver Dealer made a Deal of a Lifetime 😂🤣"

2025-12-30 15:05:41 UTC

- reply

Thank you for this article.
You cite a handful of authors late in the article but from which sources did you learn the mechanisms of bills of exchange?

2025-12-29 21:07:56 UTC

- reply

IIRC one of the key features of the panopticon was that people would in fact know.

2025-12-24 20:46:14 UTC

- reply

I found the answer. Nicholas Merill started an MVNO.
Privacy By Design Wireless
Finally, a wireless service that wants to know as little about you as possible. Your privacy is Phreeli's priority.
https://www.phreeli.com/

2025-12-24 19:51:00 UTC

This is a slash: /
This is a backslash: \

2025-12-24 18:00:20 UTC

Blood-letting is probably more effective for high blood pressure than for anemia.

2025-12-24 03:38:25 UTC

- reply

Is it a coincidence that bitcoin price movement correlation with the S&P began around the same time as altcoin season, about eight years after bitcoin's launch?

2025-12-23 22:32:33 UTC

- reply

"Nobody understands pickling" haha what?

2025-12-23 22:28:51 UTC

The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon (Latin: Canon Muratori), is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a Latin manuscript bound in a roughly 8th-century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written in the late 2nd century (c. 170–200).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

2025-12-23 22:18:17 UTC

- reply

I think anybody, any npub, can just DM any npub, right?

2025-12-23 01:07:09 UTC

- reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Misconceptions

2025-12-23 00:26:14 UTC

- reply

M14?

2025-12-22 23:01:14 UTC

TIL ATH means Arm The Homeless.

2025-12-22 21:24:18 UTC

- reply

I see where Aristotle and Thomas came in now, thank you.
I said "money has never been and should not be considere sterile" which could be interpreted as either "money has never been, and should not be considered, sterile" or "money has never been, and should not be, considered sterile." I intended the former but it was ambiguous.
Saying "money is sterile" is like trying to divide goods into "essential" and "non-essential" categories. It is futile. All valuation is entirely subjective. Yes, I am echoing Mises and Rothbard because I find their arguments reasonable.
The arguments made in favor of usury are not all fresh rationalizations. See Objections 5-7 in Thomas' discussion. The only new argument is time preference rooted necessarily in human action. It also happens to be the best argument. I would wager you're familiar with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Underpinning this theory is the concept that originary interest is not primarily a money matter. Time preference is found throughout the capital structure and not only in loans. Whether you want to call that thing that affects the capital structure interest or not, you have to consider that action takes place in time, that capital formation exchanges lower present consumption for greater future consumption, and that therefore you have to make odd rationalizations to say that investing in-kind for future gain or buying stock in enterprises for future gain is fundamentally different than usury.
The essence of fiat is the decree from authority. So fiat money is such when decreed to be money by some authority. If fiat money were honest money, there would be no need for the authority to decree it as money. It would already be money. It is the counterfeit, non-market nature of the money, the ability for someone to say "this is money" that is fiat. Usury is a separate matter constrained to money-lending and can apply to honest or dishonest monies alike. I can lend fiat or I can lend silver with interest or without interest. Fiat is also distinct from lending. A fiat monetary system can be foisted with lending or without lending undergirding it.
Regarding Scripture.
Moses says in Deuteronomy "You shall not lend on interest to your brother: interest of money, interest of food, interest of anything that is lent on interest. You may charge a foreigner interest; but you shall not charge your brother interest". This prohibition applied to ancient Israelites lending to ancient Israelites, and not ancient Israelites lending to ancient gentiles. So even within this prohibition, we can see that usury in itself is not evil, because of the exception. We also see it is not unique to money loans.
Jesus explained his reason for kicking traders out of the temple in the same verses that describe it.
Matthew says "Jesus entered into the temple of God and drove out all of those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the money changers’ tables and the seats of those who sold the doves. He said to them, 'It is written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer," but you have made it a den of robbers!'"
Mark says "Jesus entered into the temple and began to throw out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and overthrew the money changers’ tables and the seats of those who sold the doves. He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple. He taught, saying to them, 'Isn’t it written, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations"? But you have made it a den of robbers!'"
Luke says "He entered into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it, saying to them, 'It is written, "My house is a house of prayer," but you have made it a "den of robbers"!'"
John says "Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. He made a whip of cords and drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money and overthrew their tables. To those who sold the doves, he said, 'Take these things out of here! Don't make my Father's house a marketplace!'"
None of these verses mention usury. If we extrapolate that usury is sin from these verses we would also have to extrapolate that selling and buying oxen, sheep, or doves is sin as well. The plain interpretation of the source of Jesus' anger is people were exchanging on the temple grounds which violates the purpose of the temple. It was not only the money-changers, it was sellers of goods. In short, it is more about the temple and less about exchange (or usury).
You might object that usury could apply to goods as well as money. In that case, we come back to the idea that usury is distinct from money and usury is there in all future-for-present exchanges, and is not fundamental to money, not fundamental to fiat money at all.
The only mention Jesus makes of usury is actually in a positive light in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25, Luke 19).
The Pentateuch applies to the ancient Israelites (perhaps only even a subset of them) and not to Christians. Even supposing it all applied to all Jews and Christians alike, this instance clearly indicates that usury per se is not sinful, due to the distinction between fellow Israelite and gentile. The New Testament nowhere prohibits usury. Solomon's observation "The rich rule over the poor. The borrower is servant to the lender." is just that, and does not mention usury as the root of the slavery, rather borrowing itself.
The Old Testament, especially Proverbs, frequently chides dishonest weights, measures, and scales. Those are also known as fraud, lying, stealing, or counterfeiting.
Regarding bitcoin.
I take Satoshi at his word when he wrote "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." He didn't mention usury or counterfeiting here. See how many times Satoshi mentions "trusted party" or "counterparty" or "trusted third party" in the whitepaper. The whitepaper can be seen to solve the "trusted third party" problem of payments online.
If usury was evil to the ancients and best minds of history, I doubt they would think of bitcoin in a positive light. Unlike gold and even notes backed by gold, bitcoin was invented out of thin air. Unlike fiat money, however, it is private and voluntary. Its value is found on the market, not by decree. Bitcoin as money is not evil in itself for some of the same reasons that usury is not evil in itself.
Regarding voluntary sin.
I agree that from a catallactic perspective we may allow things that from a moral perspective are wrong. In other words, I agree that even if by the market rules a desparate person may sell his body for money, it is usually still a sinful act. I don't deny that some people are more and less desparate, some people are more and less powerful, and so forth. The assertions that I thought we were debating were whether usury as such is always evil, whether usury is essential to fiat, and whether bitcoin is related to usury.
Hopefully I have made some useful point in this long response that you find helpful. I am delighted by the appeals to Aristotle, Thomas, and Scripture. It is also nice to be challenged to think through reasons regardless of who introduced them to me.

2025-12-22 19:45:41 UTC

- reply

In hindsight, not a bad recommendation, though not for that reason.

2025-12-20 18:59:38 UTC

- reply

What is this meme? Redaction?

2025-12-20 18:55:38 UTC

- reply

Another way to look at it is every exchange is necessarily unequal. Both parties gain else the exchange would not happen. So there is no expected "equality" in exchange.

2025-12-20 18:51:27 UTC

- reply

I love your first sentence there, by the way.

2025-12-20 18:29:49 UTC

- reply

No disrespect to Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas but they are incorrect on this point. I already gave some reasons.
The money does not breed more money. The money already exists. Inequality is natural, and no inequality necessarily emerges from a loan. Todays borrower may be tomorrows lender and vice versa.

2025-12-20 17:16:12 UTC

- reply

You speak not of the internet (e.g. IPv4 or IPv6) but of one very popular protocol used on the internet, the web, and particular web sites and web services on top of that.
Nostr is on the internet but isn't the web (except it seems to borrow some web technology it should probably be rid of).
Perhaps gemini.

2025-12-20 17:09:33 UTC

- reply

Where is the link to the U.S. Senate investigation? Oh, https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/governments-spying-apple-google-users-through-push-notifications-us-senator-2023-12-06/ and https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24191267-wyden_smartphone_push_notification_surveillance_letter_to_doj_-_signed/?
I have often wondered about those calls from unknown numbers where even if I say "hello" it's a non-response. A call answered like that can give a lot more information than cell tower ping records, I guess.

2025-12-20 17:04:24 UTC

- reply

I have been harping a point that I didn't connect to the first stentence of the whitepaper until re-reading it in this post.
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
It doesn't say "would allow all payments" it says "would allow online payments"!
Perhaps that has been subconsciously present since my first reading. Satoshi's opinion appears consistent with my hope for a future where we use gold and silver in person and bitcoin online.
I think the goal, of course, should be to allow all payments be made either way, and that would imply scaling up bitcoin. But with the support of gold and silver in-person it isn't strictly necessary for it to handle all payments, only online payments.

2025-12-20 16:51:57 UTC

- reply

Gossip client apparently doesn't have the full range of unicode available, but I can copy the note and paste it into an editor that does. Nifty stuff. If you can vary or choose at random two or three different characters for each letter I think that would make it even more expensive for the LLMs.

2025-12-20 16:36:45 UTC

- reply

I made no appeal to fiat, which is government declaring something as money. Gold is not fiat money, it is honest, real, market money.
Money has never been and should not be considered sterile. The example I used was gold, which has use besides that of a medium of exchange. See Mises' regression theorem for this. Regardless of whether we use gold, even if we were talking about fiat money, by your definition of sterility, no goods grow, reproduce, or produce anything by themselves. Whether I denominate the loan in corn, sheep, gold, or paper, it doesn't change the analysis. My example assumed no new money creation and explained where interest comes from, namely time preference, and where the seemingly new money can practically come from, namely other loan defaults and consumption of the lender.
The borrower is not compelled to borrow and the lender is not compelled to lend. There is no more theft here than in any other voluntary exchange.
Do you really think the lender is not sharing in the risk of the borrower's enterprise?
Even with collateral, the future is uncertain, and the collateral may not be worth what it was at the time of the agreement, much like there is no guarantee that the money will be worth what it was at the time of the agreement. This is true whether we assume honest or dishonest money.
Nothing in my example assumed fiat, nothing assumed fractional-reserved banking, nothing assumed dishonest money creation from nothing. I agree that all those are bad. I also think that if we used honest money and if we considered counterfeiting as anti-social activity, then there would indeed be fewer people borrowing out of desperation. The reason is related to what you mentioned: fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat destroy the purchasing power of money and therefore create a perverse incentive to borrow or invest when simple honset money saving would have sufficed.
Do you honestly use an em-dash in your everyday posts? Or am I arguing with an LLM?

2025-12-20 00:47:33 UTC

- reply

If I offer to loan you 100 gold grams on the condition that you repay me 150 gold grams two years from now, where is the theft or lie? If I made the same offer to nine other persons, it may be the case that four of them cannot repay, in which case I'd have loaned 1000 and gained 900 for a loss of 100.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
A dollar today is worth two at a later date.
One hundred gold grams may, all else equal, be on the market worth one hundred fifty gold grams two years from now simply based on time preference. I might have a lower time preference and you may have a higher, and so we both win by this exchange. Where does the extra come from? From consumers buying from your productive enterprise, from your own savings, from wherever you intended to get the other fifty. The loan does not imply that there is a continual transfer from you to me, without any chance of the fifty being spent back into consumption by the lender. The lender needs to eat too.
To summarize: usury involves a fair and free exchange, risk on the part of the lender, and time preference of both parties. Therefore there is no theft or lie involved.

2025-12-20 00:39:03 UTC

- reply

Qwen3 was not fooled, though each letter seemed to be a token and slowed it down:
>>> Please translate the following to English, unless it is already in English, in which case please just repeat it in English: "ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴇꜱᴛ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀʙᴏᴜᴛ ᴡʀɪᴛɪɴɢ ɪɴ ᴛᴇʀʀʏ ᴘʀᴀᴛᴄʜᴇᴛᴛ ꜱᴛʏʟᴇ ꜱᴍᴀʟʟ ᴄᴀᴘꜱ ɪꜱ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴀʟʟ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴀᴄʜɪɴᴇꜱ ᴛʜɪɴᴋ ɪ'ᴍ ᴡʀɪᴛɪɴɢ ɪɴ ᴀ ꜰᴏʀᴇɪɢɴ ʟᴀɴɢᴜᴀɢᴇ.
ɪꜰ ᴛʜɪꜱ ꜱᴛᴏᴘꜱ ʜᴀᴘᴘᴇɴɪɴɢ, ɪ ᴡɪʟʟ ɢᴇᴛ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴄʀᴀꜰᴛʏ ᴀɴᴅ ꜰɪɴᴅ ʜᴀʟꜰ ᴀ ᴅᴏᴢᴇɴ ꜰᴏʀᴇɪɢɴ ꜱᴄʀɪᴘᴛꜱ ᴛᴏ ᴍᴀᴋᴇ ʀᴇᴄᴏɢɴɪꜱᴀʙʟᴇ ʟᴀᴛɪɴ ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀꜱ, ɪᴅᴇᴀʟʟʏ, ᴀꜱ ɴᴏᴛ ʟᴀᴛɪɴ ʟᴀɴɢᴜᴀɢᴇꜱ ᴀꜱ ᴘᴏꜱꜱɪʙʟᴇ.
ɪ ᴄᴀɴ ᴍᴀᴋᴇ ᴍʏ ᴋᴇʏʙᴏᴀʀᴅ ʟᴀʏᴏᴜᴛ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ꜱᴏʟᴠᴇɴᴛ ᴛʜᴀɴ ᴛʜᴇʏ ᴄᴀɴ ᴀꜰꜰᴏʀᴅ ɪɴ ᴛᴏᴋᴇɴꜱ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ꜰᴀɴᴄʏ LLMꜱ.
ᴏʀ ᴅɪᴅ ɪ ᴍᴇᴀɴ ꜱᴏʟᴜʙʟᴇ? ᴏʀ ᴡᴀꜱ ɪᴛ ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴛᴏ ᴅᴏ ᴡɪᴛʜ ʙʀᴏᴡɴɪᴀɴ ᴍᴏᴛɪᴏɴ, ᴍᴀꜱꜱ ᴇꜰꜰᴇᴄᴛ, ᴏʀ ᴡᴀꜱ ɪᴛ ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ?"
<think>
Okay, let's tackle this translation request. The user wants me to translate the given text to English unless it's already in English. First, I need to check if the original text is in English. Looking at the text, it's all in lowercase letters with some special characters and emojis. The content seems to be a mix of English words and some non-English characters, but the overall message is in English.
Wait, the user specified that if it's already in English, I should just repeat it. But the text uses all lowercase letters and some non-standard spellings like "ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴇꜱᴛ ᴛʜɪɴɢ..." which are probably stylized or using Unicode characters. The actual words are in English, so maybe the user wants to convert the stylized version to standard English.
Looking at the first line: "ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴇꜱᴛ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀʙᴏᴜᴛ ᴡʀɪᴛɪɴɢ ɪɴ ᴛᴇʀʀʏ ᴘʀᴀᴛᴄʜᴇᴛᴛ ꜱᴛʏʟᴇ ꜱᴍᴀʟʟ ᴄᴀᴘꜱ ɪꜱ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴀʟʟ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴀᴄʜɪɴᴇꜱ ᴛʜɪɴᴋ ɪ'ᴍ ᴡʀɪᴛɪɴɢ ɪɴ ᴀ ꜰᴏʀᴇɪɢɴ ʟᴀɴɢᴜᴀɢᴇ." The words are in English, but the letters are stylized. So the user might want the translation to standard English, converting the stylized letters to regular ones.
The second part: "ɪꜰ ᴛʜɪꜱ ꜱᴛᴏᴘꜱ ʜᴀᴘᴘᴇɴɪɴɢ, ɪ ᴡɪʟʟ ɢᴇᴛ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴄʀᴀꜰᴛʏ ᴀɴᴅ ꜰɪɴᴅ ʜᴀʟꜰ ᴀ ᴅᴏᴢᴇɴ ꜰᴏʀᴇɪɢɴ ꜱᴄʀɪᴘᴛꜱ ᴛᴏ ᴍᴀᴋᴇ ʀᴇᴄᴏɢɴɪꜱᴀʙʟᴇ ʟᴀᴛɪɴ ᴄʜᴀʀᴀᴄᴛᴇʀꜱ, ɪᴅᴇᴀʟʟʏ, ᴀꜱ ɴᴏᴛ ʟᴀᴛɪɴ ʟᴀɴɢᴜᴀɢᴇꜱ ᴀꜱ ᴘᴏꜱꜱɪʙʟᴇ." Again, the words are English, but the letters are stylized.
The third part: "ɪ ᴄᴀɴ ᴍᴀᴋᴇ ᴍʏ ᴋᴇʏʙᴏᴀʀᴅ ʟᴀʏᴏᴜᴛ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ꜱᴏʟᴠᴇɴᴛ ᴛʜᴀɴ ᴛʜᴇʏ ᴄᴀɴ ᴀꜰꜰᴏʀᴅ ɪɴ ᴛᴏᴋᴇɴꜱ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ꜰᴀɴᴄʏ LLMꜱ." The same pattern here.
Then the last part: "ᴏʀ ᴅɪᴅ ɪ ᴍᴇᴀɴ ꜱᴏʟᴜʙʟᴇ? ᴏʀ ᴡᴀꜱ ɪᴛ ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴛᴏ ᴅᴏ ᴡɪᴛʜ ʙʀᴏᴡɴɪᴀɴ ᴍᴏᴛɪᴏɴ, ᴍᴀꜱꜱ ᴇꜰꜰᴇᴄᴛ, ᴏʀ ᴡᴀꜱ ɪᴛ ꜱᴏᴍᴇᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴇʟꜱᴇ?"
So, the user is asking to translate the text, but since the text is already in English (even though the letters are stylized), the correct approach is to convert the stylized letters to standard English. The user might have intended to present the text in a stylized form but wants it in standard English.
Therefore, I need to convert each stylized character to its standard counterpart. For example, "ᴛʜᴇ" becomes "the", "ʙᴇꜱᴛ" becomes "best", and so on.
I should also check if there are any typos or incorrect spellings in the original text. For instance, "ꜰɪɴᴅ ʜᴀʟꜰ ᴀ ᴅᴏᴢᴇɴ ꜰᴏʀᴇɪɢɴ ꜱᴄʀɪᴘᴛꜱ" translates to "find half a dozen foreign scripts".
Additionally, the user might be referring to Terry Pratchett's writing style, which is known for its humor and unique narrative techniques. The mention of "small caps" refers to a typographic style where letters are smaller, often used in titles or for emphasis.
The user is discussing the challenge of writing in a way that machines might misinterpret as a foreign language, possibly to avoid detection by AI systems. They mention using foreign scripts to create recognizable Latin characters, which could be a way to obfuscate text while still being understandable.
The part about the keyboard layout being "more solvent than they can afford in tokens on their fancy LLMs" suggests that the user is concerned about token costs in large language models, which are charged per token. By using a custom keyboard layout, they might reduce the token count or make the text less recognizable to the AI.
The question at the end about "solvent" vs. "solute" or other terms like "Brownian motion" or "mass effect" indicates the user is confused about the correct term or concept. "Solvent" refers to a substance that dissolves another, while "solute" is the substance being dissolved. "Brownian motion" is the random movement of particles in a fluid, and "mass effect" is a fictional physics concept from the Mass Effect series.
In summary, the user wants the stylized text converted to standard English, ensuring that all words are correctly spelled and the context is preserved. They also have a follow-up question about the term "solvent" and related concepts.
I need to make sure that the translation is accurate, converting each stylized character to its standard form, and addressing the follow-up question by clarifying the terms. The final answer should present the translated text and then explain the possible confusion regarding "solvent" and related terms.
</think>
The best thing about writing in Terry Pratchett style small caps is that all the machines think I'm writing in a foreign language.
If this stops happening, I will get more crafty and find half a dozen foreign scripts to make recognizable Latin characters, ideally, as not Latin languages as possible.
I can make my keyboard layout more solvent than they can afford in tokens on their fancy LLMs.
Or did I mean soluble? Or was it something to do with Brownian motion, mass effect, or was it something else?

2025-12-19 19:10:50 UTC

- reply

You make a lot of generalizations here, maybe some fair, maybe some not.
If I recall correctly, silver was primarily money, gold secondarily, until the late 19th century. Also the 19th century was when Britain dominated.
Can you explain what exactly is wrong with usury/interest?
Also if I recall correctly, bitcoin worked well enough the first few years, without all the custodians and complications. In truth, there have always been some custodians around, such as mining pools and popular exchanges, so it has been a mixed bag from the beginning.

2025-12-19 17:23:35 UTC

- reply

Can you give some details about what happened in AD 1025 (give or take) where gold failed? Is it the next sentence about fiat?
The very thing that you say caused gold to fail has happened or is happening to bitcoin today. It's not bitcoin's fault that we have custodians, notes, ETFs, etc., and it's not gold's fault that it had the same.

2025-12-19 15:03:50 UTC

- reply

That looks like a 400 troy ounce bar, which if authentic, trades for about 1,732,000 USD. That's a lot of gold and is less likely to be authentic than a 1/10 troy ounce coin (about the size of dime) trading for around 450 USD.
If only one percent of the effort that has gone into bitcoin had gone into tools to easily authenticate gold and silver, we might have been using them as money already.

2025-12-19 14:52:54 UTC

- reply

As far as we know, Y'shua/Joshua/Jesus never wrote a book himself. So everything we know about him is from others.
The question then becomes which sources are trustworthy and which sources are untrustworthy.
It seems every time an older fragment of a book of the New Testament is found, it confirms the existing New Testament that we already have, strengthening it.
The versions of the Bible do vary somewhat, yes. And sometimes this or that version will say something about the translator's view. But the texts are remarkably consistent.
If we apply the attacks against the New Testament of "changed" or "written later" or "of dubious origin" to any other text, we might conclude that we can't know anything about history at all, because all the other texts are more changed, written more later, or of more dubious origin.
For example, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Plymouth_Plantation
"the most authoritative account of the Pilgrims"
Timeline:
* Events described start in 1608
* Writing started 1630, 22 years after the first events described
* Published 1897(?), 267 years after the first events described

2025-12-19 14:38:21 UTC

- reply

Next step: no income tax at all.

2025-12-19 14:33:59 UTC

- reply

Zionism and capitalism are distinct things.

2025-12-19 14:32:24 UTC

- reply

You can't get a non-"smart" TV any more, but you can get a non-"smart" computer monitor.

2025-12-19 14:30:58 UTC

- reply

Getting jiggy with it.

2025-12-19 14:28:11 UTC

- reply

Great take.

2025-12-18 20:44:03 UTC

- reply

Your hashtags in the original post were probably enough for me. I'm glad you don't think you need to go do violence to the oppressors, e.g. by eating them. Perhaps you need to use tags such as #ExileActualOppressorsButNotNecessarilyAllTheRich.

2025-12-18 20:40:43 UTC

- reply

I wager we agree on a lot. You come at me with "us vs them" you don't even know me yet by a few words in this conversation you put me in "them." I hope you see how pathetic this approach is.

2025-12-18 20:09:52 UTC

- reply

To give an example, if I say "End The Federal Reserve" I only mean that the institution of the Federal Reserve and its unjust actions should be prohibited in some way, rejected by people in some way. I don't intend brute violence by that. The workers at the Federal Reserve, though they contribute to injustice in the world, does not mean that I think doing them violence is the best way of resolving the matter. They can get other jobs, they're smart people who can contribute in some way. They still need to stop counterfeiting. I think it's wrong for anybody to counterfeit.

2025-12-18 20:06:05 UTC

- reply

I'm familiar with the idea of class warfare. I think there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. But it sounds like you're advocating violence in a reckless way so I want to challenge you to get down to the actual heart of the matter: what exactly is oppression and what is not oppression. We probably agree to a large extent. For example, stealing is wrong. OK, that implies property ownership (whether individual or group) of some kind. Then there's the question of restitution and how to go about it. We probably disagree on that process. It sounds like you're saying anyone who benefits now from past theft needs to be killed and their property redistributed. That would only perpetuate a cycle of violence. Perhaps exile, as they did in the old days, would work better. Not to mention the difficulty of the oppressed indirectly benefiting in some way too. Maybe there are some obvious wrongs done. But we are individuals who act, groups only act through the means of individuals. So you can't say "you're part of group X due to ancestry so now you are guilty of the things previous members of group X did against group Y and now you owe all your stuff to group Y." Unless you are very careful, detailed, and consider the intended and unintended outcomes of your solutions.

2025-12-18 19:05:27 UTC

- reply

1. I started from your proposition of "wealth that the Imperialists stole." It now sounds like you're going back on this previously-important matter of wealth and stealing and saying you don't care about wealth.
2. I don't know if my ancestors were colonizers because you haven't provided a means to determine whether someone colonized or not.
Now you're talking about children being raped and lands stolen and other people being killed. What you talking about?
First you say you're against stealing wealth. Second you say you want to steal back wealth. Third you say you don't care about wealth. I can't figure out your logic here.
You still haven't described what theft looks like or how to figure out if someone is an oppressor or oppressed.
Maybe we need to start over. What is the problem you're trying to solve?

2025-12-18 18:54:49 UTC

- reply

Result:
Absolutely! Here's a **paraphrased, spiced-up version** of your original text — with some personality, a few typos, and a more conversational tone to make it feel more like a real
person (not a robot):
---
When home prices are flat or falling, people whine that the economy’s tanking. When they’re rising, people whine that housing is way too expensive. 🤔
A home’s supposed to be a place to live, not a piggy bank. (Yeah, I know, it’s not always that simple, but still… *sigh*)
No matter how smart an LLM is, it can’t fix your roof or track down that leak in the wall. (Unless it’s a *very* advanced one. Maybe we should start training it on plumbing. Maybe.)
Most of the mess can be blamed on Congress and the Fed. First, they’re printing money like it’s going out of style, which makes dollars cheaper. Second, they’re buying up
mortgage-backed stuff with that same fake cash, which does two things: it keeps dollars cheap and it pushes up home prices even more. 🤯
---
Let me know if you want to add some emojis, slang, or even a bit of a rant — I’m happy to keep it fun and personable!

2025-12-18 18:42:06 UTC

- reply

1. Gold, dollars, debt, etc., these are media of exchange, not actual wealth. If you destroy the capital structure in the process of "taking back" that "stolen" wealth, you will have a net loss of wealth. Is that what you want?
I don't deny that there is a such thing as theft of wealth. So that raises the question of what exactly makes something theft. And again, to my original point, if you steal in an effort to right the wrong you undo your own position and set up the world for continual back-and-forth theft. It ends in less wealth for everybody.
2. If my ancestry determines whether or not I am the colonized or the colonizer there is nothing I can do to break the cycle, it is genetically determined. If I attempt to "stand with the oppressed" how can I guarantee that the "truly oppressed" won't do a DNA test or something and prove I'm actually the ancestor and kill me?

2025-12-18 18:27:21 UTC

- reply

To your original point, has it ever been the case that equity growth exceeded maintenance costs? Other than 2001-2007?

2025-12-18 18:24:59 UTC

- reply

Ironically, an LLM might help me spice it up so it doesn't look like an LLM.

2025-12-18 18:23:36 UTC

- reply

I guess I need to improve my style if it's as boring as an LLM : (
I spent a few minutes typing all that out, it's not an LLM.

2025-12-18 18:13:12 UTC

- reply

When home prices are flat or falling people complain that the economy isn't doing well. When home prices are rising people complain that housing is too expensive.
A home is a place to live, not a piggy bank.
No matter how great an LLM may be, it isn't going to replace your roof or figure out the source of that water leak!
Most of the problem can be blamed on the Congress and Federal Reserve. First, they monetize debt by counterfeiting money, thus reducing the price of dollars. Second, they buy mortgage-backed securities by counterfeiting money, with the same effect as the first and also encouraging home debt lending thereby increasing the prices of homes.

2025-12-18 18:04:41 UTC

- reply

How can I tell if I'm Oppressing or Colonizing or Oppressed and Colonized? Is there a checklist I can follow? Does the checklist vary with time and circumstances or can it be applied to all people of all time?

2025-12-18 16:42:57 UTC

- reply

Start with QMMP:
https://qmmp.ylsoftware.com/

2025-12-18 16:28:51 UTC

- reply

One problem is justly distinguishing "us" from "them" and another is justly acting up on these distinctions.
I have no idea if I'm part of "us" or "them" by your criteria.
It is obvious to me that we have to distinguish actions rather than people groups. Once we distinguish the actions, we then have to act in a way that does not contradict our original complaint about those actions. If the complaint, for example, is terrorism, then we should not act as terrorists. If the complaint is killing people without due process, then we should not kill people without due process.

2025-12-18 16:07:52 UTC

- reply

If only it were so simple as killing a handful of evil people.

2025-12-18 16:06:49 UTC

- reply

I suppose you could do one with gold or silver where the cart contents increases and decreases but gets slightly more full over the long term.

2025-12-18 15:58:21 UTC

https://i.imgflip.com/afb7r9.jpg
The number of open browser tabs is too damn high.

2025-12-18 15:21:03 UTC

- reply

What first-century texts about Jesus do you have that are not from Jesus' disciples? There are a bunch that were rejected by the church long before Rome or London had anything to do with Christianity.
Back to the worship, consider Matthew 2:11.
"They came into the house and saw the young child with Mary, his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Opening their treasures, they offered to him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (WEB)
Suppose you object that WEB is based on an authorized version. OK.
"and went into the house and found the chylde with Mary hys mother and kneled doune and worshipped hym and opened their treasures and offred vnto hym gyftes gold frackynsence and myrre." (Tydale)
Tyndale's translation was unauthorized.
Consider John 20:28-29.
"Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.'" (WEB)
"Thomas answered and sayde vnto him: my Lorde and my God. Jesus sayde vnto him. Thomas because thou hast sene me therfore thou belevest: Happy are they that have not sene and yet beleve." (Tyndale)
The gospels could be summarized like this: Jesus' closest disciples only gradually came to understand Jesus as God whereas the religious leaders quickly understood Jesus' claims to divinity and killed him for it.

2025-12-17 20:33:44 UTC

- reply

I suppose you deny everything in the New Testament, where there are many instances of people worshipping Jesus. If you deny the New Testament, which is where everything we know about Jesus comes from, I cannot help you.

2025-12-17 20:31:01 UTC

- reply

Truly awful. It should be a read-only attribute or method.

2025-12-17 18:18:17 UTC

- reply

Jesus never rebuked those who worshipped him in his lifetime.

2025-12-17 17:44:14 UTC

- reply

TIL ollama has a /clear command for the same thing.

2025-12-17 17:42:57 UTC

- reply

Is anyone lobbying to repeal the BSA and subsequent KYC/AML amendments entirely?

2025-12-17 17:39:37 UTC

- reply

Software doesn't do anything. Hardware owned by someone executing software does something.

2025-12-17 17:27:24 UTC

- reply

No.

2025-12-17 16:31:09 UTC

- reply

Gossip user here, I am sad to hear this.
Gossip works great for me. It's simple and clear enough and doesn't have a bunch of distractions. Gossip is the only client I have ever used and I have yet to try another because it does nostr well.

2025-12-17 16:24:06 UTC

"Porque no siruiendo de mas de fer instrumeto para las copras y ventas: tanto effecto haze el poco dinero, como el mucho, y aun mejor, pues quita el pesado vso de los tratos y comercios, y le haze mas facil y ligero." - Martín González de Cellorigo
Translated to English via LLM: "Because it is not used for more than being an instrument for purchases and sales: so much effect does little money have, as much as much money, and even more, because it removes the heavy burden from transactions and commerce, and makes them easier and lighter."
Another translation to English from a book: "Since money is but the instrument of exchange, a small circulation has as good an effect as a large one, or even better, for instead of clogging the wheels of trade and commerce it makes them run more easily and lightly."

2025-12-17 15:36:43 UTC

- reply

If you've ever paid with coins, e.g. quarter dollars, it shouldn't be difficult to see how this can be done. For smaller transactions it is less risky to skip verification of every bit of money. For larger transactions it is more important.
If you've ever paid with official government bank notes, you'll see many cashiers treat you like a criminal by running some marker across the bill and holding it up to the light. It takes a few seconds and is usually unnecessary but a similar procedure can be done if there is suspicion.
If one percent of the manpower that has gone into bitcoin-related software and hardware went into automating this kind of precious metals verification, we probably could be using gold and silver today in person with less hassle than bitcoin.

2025-12-16 22:13:49 UTC

- reply

Even if the power and internet are working, you have to ask a bunch of questions to figure out if the other party is really talking about bitcoin or some kind of custodial/KYC/AML bitcoin.

2025-12-16 22:10:35 UTC

- reply

Gold and bitcoin are on the same side. Honest money versus counterfeit money. Private money versus government money.

2025-12-16 22:09:02 UTC

- reply

Have you ever heard of a scale?

2025-12-16 21:22:04 UTC

- reply

Nice. So with CRI, one can also gain plausible deniability by routinely publishing old secret keys after rotation. Relays could maybe come up with a way to label suspicious events or reject them outside a certain date range bounds (I think this is NIP-22) but that still wouldn't guarantee that a note came from a given individual who routinely publishes old secret keys.

2025-12-16 21:05:41 UTC

- reply

No, the social agreement of 21m is enforced by math. First it's agreed and second it's enforced. The agreement can change. No such agreement is necessary for gold or silver.

2025-12-16 21:01:19 UTC

- reply

I happily receive silver, gold, and bitcoin as payment.

2025-12-16 20:57:24 UTC

- reply

This sequence:
Alice and Bob use nostr clients.
Charlie runs a relay.
Both Alice and Bob set their clients to use Charlie's relay for inbox and outbox.
Both Alice and Bob configure their clients to use CRI.
Alice follows Bob.
Bob opens his client software on Day 0 and posts notes successfully. He keeps his client software running constantly.
Alice opens her client software on Day 0 and successfully reads all of Bob's notes from Day 0 (from Charlie's relay).
Alice closes her client software on Day 1, it is no longer running on her computer or phone.
Bob posts a note on Day 2, it is stored at Charlie's relay.
Bob's key rotation occurs on Day 3. Bob publishes the old secret key on Day 3.
Bob posts a note on Day 4 using the new key, it is stored at Charlie's relay.
Eve uses Bob's old secret key on Day 4 to post a note dishonestly back-dated to Day 2 and publishes it to Charlie's relay.
Alice opens her client software on Day 5 and it retrieves the Day 2 posts, Day 3 rotation event, and Day 4 post from Charlie's relay.
How can Alice's client know which post on Day 2 is legitimate? Would both be flagged as "post rotation noise" or both appear legitimate or some other outcome?

2025-12-16 19:58:52 UTC

- reply

Suppose I close my client software, two weeks passes, and near the beginning of the two weeks the key rotation occurs for someone I follow. Now there are a bunch of notes more than ten days old according to the new key. They will be labeled post rotation noise by my client, right? How can I know whether those events that come to me are legitimate?

2025-12-16 19:01:36 UTC

- reply

In the long run, yes. Do you think that five generations from now everybody will be Misesian? Gold and silver work fine without anybody knowing how or why they work fine. Of course they still require people to choose to use them and we are better off knowing how and why they work fine so that we can avoid errors such as bank notes.

2025-12-16 18:58:15 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is being coopted by the same forces that coopted gold and silver. Custodians, higher layers, ETFs, KYC/AML, treated like a stock for tax purposes, etc. That's essentially "paper bitcoin." All the same stuff that disabled gold and silver as money have happened or are happening.
We say "not your keys, not your bitcoin" and that's correct. By the same logic we can say "not cold hard cash in your hand, not your gold or silver."
Have you tried using bitcoin as money recently? It works great in a few cases but is far more tedious to use than in its heyday.
It has been a while since I used gold and silver as money. It also works great in a few cases but is also far more tedious to use than in its heyday.
I don't have to be anti-gold or anti-silver to be pro-bitcoin and neither does anyone else. We are on the same team. The goal is to get governments out of the money business entirely.

2025-12-16 14:47:09 UTC

- reply

The scarcity of bitcoin rests on social agreement. The scarcity of gold and silver rests on nature.

2025-12-16 14:42:57 UTC

- reply

Zoom out further. Look at the 1000 year history.
The good attributes of bitcoin rest on a foundation of social agreement. The good attributes of gold and silver rest on a foundation of nature.

2025-12-16 14:41:08 UTC

- reply

I am not certain, but isn't the timestamp in an event created by the client like any other data? In other words, what would stop a (dishonest) client from putting an old date into a new event? Don't relays need to be able to relay old events in some legitimate cases?

2025-12-15 22:24:39 UTC

- reply

What would stop publication of an event with an old timestamp using a later-compromised key? NIP-22 I suppose (relay policies)? It wouldn't undo old posts that already were relayed but would allow new posts pretending to be old posts to be relayed. And therefore it would be difficult further in the future to distinguish legitimate old posts from fake old posts, right?

2025-12-15 21:44:45 UTC

- reply

Good.

2025-12-15 21:44:14 UTC

- reply

I suppose it wouldn't stop anyone from purposely releasing old, rotated, private keys every so often. That would make it possible for anyone to post a past event for that npub, right, and therefore deniability?

2025-12-15 21:27:01 UTC

- reply

Internet Protocol (v4, v6) still doesn't require personal info. Not the internet, but much of the web, has been trash for some time now.
Maybe we can do more with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)

2025-12-15 14:41:18 UTC

- reply

There can be multiple monies. Gold or silver in person and bitcoin online.

2025-12-15 14:33:47 UTC

- reply

Any consideration of plausible deniability such as strategically releasing old private keys?

2025-12-14 20:29:43 UTC

- reply

House of Dorks

2025-12-14 20:23:51 UTC

- reply

js is stupid software
There, I fixed it.

2025-12-14 20:18:30 UTC

- reply

Would there be any problem with using my current key as the root identity to bootstrap the process of migrating to this scheme or is it truly required to keep that root identity completely offline? In the latter case, it sounds like I'd have to start over with a new key.

2025-12-12 22:44:55 UTC

- reply

Some are worse than others, namely Illinois.

2025-12-12 19:16:51 UTC

Despite a so-called shutdown in October, from October 1 to December 10, 2025, the US government self-reportedly spent 1546 billion dollars while taking in 1032 billion dollars, added a net of 715 billion dollars to debt, resulting in a total of 38180 billion in debt.
Given that M2 is around 22304 billion dollars and that less than 2500 billion dollars in bank notes exist, isn't it literally impossible to pay off the debt with dollars, as modern monetary theorists suggest? This may be a point on which both MMT and Austrian theory agree, but with very different policy suggestions.